Roger Tolces warns that warrantless wiretaps—enabled by pre-wired phone systems like CALEA and NSA’s dragnet surveillance—violate the Fourth Amendment, creating Orwellian risks without judicial oversight. He cites 1980s precedents, Bush-era abuses (e.g., suspended habeas corpus), and $3B daily military spending while domestic infrastructure crumbles, questioning whether such tools prevent attacks like 9/11 or merely expand state control. Despite Bell’s defense of surveillance as a necessary counter to threats like nuclear strikes, Tolces highlights mission creep, from DNA databases to potential neural interference via RF radiation, suggesting even cash transactions can’t fully evade digital tracking. The debate underscores how unchecked surveillance erodes privacy, enabling potential tyranny while failing to stop sophisticated adversaries. [Automatically generated summary]
From the Southeast Asian capital city of the Philippine Islands, Manila, I wish you good morning, good afternoon, good evening.
Wherever you may be, under whatever condition you may be existing and listening to this program, the largest program of its type in the world, I bid you good day.
I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
It's going to be a very, very, very interesting program tonight.
To update you a little bit, Typhoon Meleno, which came roaring through the capital city of the Philippines here, Manila, has now killed 76 people here, 76 dead, and that number is climbing.
The number of homeless can't be counted.
So many roofs blown off.
Last night, after the program, many hours after the program, actually, we got power.
Thank you, Moralco, the power company here.
It was like Christmas when the power came on.
And so we're actually back on full power right now.
And we're one of the first areas that would regain power.
I think a significant percentage of the capital city here is still without power.
So many of you have relatives I know here in the Philippines.
If you can't get hold of them, it's probably because obviously the lines are down.
And I'm getting a lot of emails from people with relatives here.
So, you know, lines are down, that kind of thing, trees down, overlines, and all the rest of it.
The odds are pretty good that your relatives are okay, but there are a lot of homeless.
There are 76, as I mentioned, dead, and a larger number, of course, injured.
So that's the story from here in the Philippines and kind of a current update.
The webcam photograph up there this evening is from when I was down on the island of Mindanao.
And you'll see me crossing a bridge there that everybody told me not to cross for rather obvious reasons, even though it's not a highly detailed picture.
You get the idea.
Below me was a very, I don't know, 100, 150 feet or something.
And then there was rocks and a big, well, not a river, a stream, really.
So I thought, what the hell?
You only live once.
I try and not let things scare me.
Speaking of that, listen, I would ask that you all take a look at the old Philippine letter.
We've got that back up on the website tonight.
The hate letter that some idiot wrote using my name is once again circulating around the web, going around the world, around and around and around and around, as it has been doing for years.
This is somewhat dangerous to myself and my wife because, of course, now I'm here in the Philippines and for obvious reasons with the death threats coming in and that kind of thing, it's very dangerous.
And so I would ask that any of you who have relatives who are Filipinos pass on to them that this letter is, always has been, totally baloney, totally bogus.
It was sent, according to the FBI, as far as they could trace it, from the University of California at San Diego, the library there, where, of course, at that time they didn't monitor who came and went.
And that's where the trail ended.
So we don't know who sent it.
And it's just a very dangerous thing to be out there for me right now and to be recirculating.
And I'm sure that whoever is circulating is doing so because they know I'm here.
So there you have it.
Let's take a look briefly around the world.
The FBI is examining very closely Foley's email to teenagers.
The FBI is examining former Representative Mark Foley's email exchanges with teenagers to try and determine if they violated any federal law.
According to an agency spokesman Sunday, House Speaker Dennis Hastert asked Sunday for a federal investigation into the case, a lurid scandal that has put House Republicans in political peril.
A new video has surfaced showing the 9-11 hijackers a year, get this, a year before they did what they were going to do, smiling for the camera as it were, reportedly reading a will in footage taken more than 18 months before they carried out what,
of course, was the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Mohammed Atta, and another to look very, very different than in the tape they do, of course, later when we saw them.
Very different at that time.
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, coming under renewed fire for his management of the Iraq war, said on Sunday he's not considering resigning, said the president has called him personally in recent days to express his continued support.
Now, when you hear this kind of story, usually it ends up with somebody resigning.
Now, not always, but usually.
You know, the president absolutely supports me up until the moment that he doesn't.
Eight killed in Hamas fighting in Gaza.
Heavily armed Hamas militiamen effort to break up anti-government protests on Sunday sparked gun battles across the Gaza Strip.
That killed eight people in the worst internal Palestinian violence since Hamas took power.
18, engineering prodigy who gained national attention back in 2002 when his family and he received an identification chip implant on live television, was apparently killed in a motorcycle accident.
Authorities said Derek Jacobs, 18, lost control of his motorcycle early Saturday, crashed into a guardrail and a pole.
The Palm Beach County Office said he was, repeat, he was indeed wearing a helmet.
It was late 1985 when Hugh Hefner walked into the grand opening of Playboy's Empire Club in Manhattan, the latest attempt by the magazine company to freshen its suave, sexy image.
A quarter century of success in running such clubs was on the wane, and a new gimmick was thought to be needed to attract a new audience of women.
Male bunnies.
Can you imagine that?
Male bunnies.
Also, we're looking at a story in which there is purportedly a hint of a connection between the American mob and terrorists.
Now, in the old days, the American mob might have done whatever it is the American mob did in those days, but one thing they were was pretty much patriots, right?
So it's hard to imagine, or is it hard to imagine, maybe days have changed, and maybe even a mobster who would, I don't know, run booze or guns or gambling or whatever the mob did, drugs, I suppose, they were pretty much patriots.
I know it's hard to think of them that way, the American mob is patriots, but I think that they were at one time.
Now, maybe the mob has changed.
In a moment, we'll look at some of the rest of the day's news.
Those of you wishing to get on the air with something of interest in the entire audience are more than welcome to begin dialing now if you know or have written down the numbers, and I know many of you have.
We will be doing open lines, and then in the next hour, it's going to be a very, very interesting program.
Heaven knows, it certainly is timely.
Roger Tulsis is going to be with us, and he's going to be talking about what, I guess, in essence, what we're giving up to fight the war on terror.
Now, as many of you know, the president just got warrantless wiretaps approved and the monitoring of email between people in the U.S. and people elsewhere, as for example, where I am right here.
Also, possibly, you never know about this because I get these messages on the computer.
However, I do have a message from Jeff in Pasco, Washington, which says, ABC just reported that people all over the city of Yakima, Washington are lighting up the 9-11 system there, reporting that they've seen something flash across the sky.
One of the callers is a local police officer.
Now, I just read you a message from Jeff in Pasco, Washington, so I have no way of confirming that until I get additional information.
However, somebody just sent me another funny one here.
Hey, Art, if you'll try and remember to mention that today is the 36th anniversary.
My God, has it been that long since the Thrilla in Manila?
And it's true.
I went to reading as I talk to you.
I went to a concert with my wife here in Manila not long ago.
Same place.
As a matter of fact, I'm going to go see the Bee Gees in November.
And they still had the big billboard up there for the Thrilla in Manila from back in the 70s.
The hole over Antarctica's ozone layer is now bigger than last year and is now nearing the record 29 million square kilometer hole seen in 2000.
This is all according to the World Meteorological Organization on Friday.
Gir Bruthen, the United Nations weather fellow, top ozone expert, that is to say, said ozone depletion had a late onset this year in the southern hemisphere when low temperatures normally trigger chemical reactions that break down the atmospheric layer that filters dangerous solar radiation.
The ozone depletion started quite late, but when it began, it did so very rapidly.
It, the hole, has now risen to a level that has passed last year's and is very close to, if not equal to, the ozone hole, the size of 2003 and also approaching the size of 2000.
He said the Antarctic ozone hole was at its largest or second largest in 2003, biggest in 2000.
While the use of ozone-depleting CFCs has now waned, they say that large amounts of chlorine and bromine remain in the atmosphere and would keep causing large reductions in the Antarctic ozone layer for many, many years yet to come.
Now, when do we think the ozone might repair itself?
They're saying now that might be delayed until the year 2065.
Speaking of holes, not in the ozone, but here in Mother Earth, this is a fascinating story.
And I don't know if you are fascinated as I am by holes in the ground.
I don't even know why I'm fascinated by holes.
Yes, I do.
It's because we don't have any idea what's deep down in the bowels of the earth, do we?
Today, the deepest hole ever created by humankind lies beneath the tower enclosing Cola's drill.
A number of boreholes split from the central branch, but the deepest is designated SG-3, a hole about nine inches wide, which get this, snakes over 12.262 kilometers, or 7.5 miles down into the Earth's crust.
The drill spent 24 years chewing its way into the Earth until its progress was finally halted in 1994, about 2.7 kilometers, or 1.7 miles short of its 15,000-meter goal.
To the surprise of the researchers, they did not find the expected transition.
The moho from granite to basalt at 3 to 6 kilometers beneath the surface.
Data had long shown that seismic waves travel significantly faster below that depth, and geologists had believed that this was all due to a basement of basalt.
Instead, the difference was discovered to be a change in the rock, get this brought on by intense heat pressure or metamorphic rock.
Even more surprising, this deep rock was found to be saturated in water which filled the cracks.
Because free water should not be found at those depths, scientists theorize that the water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, which were squeezed out of the surrounding rocks due to the incredible pressure.
The water was then prevented from rising to the surface because of the layer of impenetrable rocks above it.
Another unexpected find was a menagerie of microscopic fossils as deep as 6.7 kilometers below the surface.
Wow.
24 distinct species of plankton microfossils were found, and they were discovered to have carbon and nitrogen coverings rather than the typical limestone or silica.
Despite the harsh environment of heat and pressure, the microscopic remains were remarkably intact.
Now, what that means, for example, I saw a recent, I think it was, was it Nova or Discovery?
Anyway, they showed that if a large rock were to hit our planet, enveloping the planet ultimately in a fiery disaster that would kill even microbes, life would once again one day emerge from far underground.
The Russian researchers were also surprised at how quickly the temperatures rose as a borehole deepened, which is the factor that ultimately halted the project's progress.
Despite the scientists' efforts to combat the heat by refrigerating the drilling mud before they pumped it down, at 12 kilometers, the drill began to approach its maximum heat tolerance.
At that level of heat and pressure, the rocks began to act more like a plastic than a solid, and the hole had a tendency to flow closed whenever the drill bit was pulled out for replacement.
Forward progress became impossible without some sort of technological breakthrough and major renovations of the equipment on hand, so drilling stopped on the SG-3 branch.
If the hole had reached the initial goal of 15,000 meters, temperatures would have reached a projected 572 degrees Fahrenheit.
When drilling stopped in 1994, the hole was over 7 miles deep, 12,262 meters, making it by far the deepest hole ever drilled by mankind.
The last of the cores to be plucked from the borehole were dated to be about 2.7 billion years old or about 32 million times older than a Vogoda.
Even at that depth, the Cola Project only penetrated into a fraction of the Earth's continental crust, which ranges from 20 to 80 kilometers thick.
That's an amazing story, and I don't know why.
Again, I've always been fascinated by all sorts of holes, Mel's hole and various others that we've heard.
There are others, by the way.
China has fired high-power lasers at U.S. spy satellites flying over its territory in what experts see as a test of Chinese ability to blind the spacecraft, according to sources.
Doesn't say what sources.
It remains unclear how many times the ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful.
We would never say, I'm sure.
But the combination of China's efforts and advances in Russian satellite jamming capabilities illustrate vulnerabilities to the U.S. space network and are at the core of U.S. Air Force plans to develop new space architectures and highly classified systems, again, according to unnamed sources.
According to experts, lasers, depending on the power level, could blind electro-optical satellites like the giant keyhole spacecraft or even interfere with radar satellites like the lacrosse.
Blinding, one source said, is different than disabling, given the enormous power required to shoot a laser through the dense lower atmosphere and reach a fast-moving satellite in space.
I don't see what the difference is.
If you can blind it, you can stop it from doing what it ought to be doing, which is a reconnaissance of whatever you want to see on the ground.
Now, I guess we're getting ready to make a black hole.
The world's most powerful atomic particle accelerator is indeed going to begin functioning around six months from right now.
It's capable of creating a black hole every second.
That's a black hole every second.
Since black holes suck up things like planets, is it dangerous?
Scientists reassure us it's not, but then, of course, they've recently steered us wrong about other dangers as well.
This comes, by the way, from Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country.
The large Hadron Collider is now under construction in an underground circular tunnel that is 17 miles long in the world's largest physics lab, CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland.
Black holes can't be seen, but astronomers can tell they do exist because of what they do.
Things like, well, they have gravity so strong they suck in everything about them.
Not even light can escape, which is how they got their name, black holes.
They form in nature when a dead star collapses.
In Livescience.com, Charles Choi quotes physicist Greg Landsberg as saying that the danger is, quoting here, totally minuscule.
End quote.
Since the danger is not zero, why take the risk?
Landsberg says, if the Large Hadron Collider does create black holes, it will prove that extra dimensions of the universe exist.
That's not trivial.
The radiation that decaying black holes emit could yield clues that help finally unite all the current ideas about the forces of nature under the theory of everything, which is something that quantum physicists have been searching for for a very long, long time.
So if it was you, if you were in charge of this project at CERN, and you were on the verge of pushing a button that would create the very first black hole with the albeit very tiny possibility that our entire planet would just blink out like that.
It's a very small possibility, of course, very small.
Now, it's not a trivial answer they're searching for.
It's the theory of everything, whether other universes actually exist, whether we could get a glimpse into another universe, whether we could even prove another universe exists.
We might get that answer.
We might get the question, the equation that I think we've been told might not be any larger than your thumb that would reveal the theory of everything.
There it is.
unidentified
A little red button sitting right in front of you.
But my dad came rushing in because my mother was yelling for him because she couldn't revive me and threw off and then started pounding on my chest and doing all this stuff.
And the next thing I know, I was like third person, back into first person, laughing at the body on the ground, and then laying back down into my body and waking up.
Well, the irony about the whole thing is the next morning, I started telling my mom, hey, why were you pounding on my chest?
And she goes, what do you mean pounding on your chest?
How do you know how I revived you?
I said, I heard the whole thing and saw dad and everything run in.
And my dad just, you know, he was in his scrubs at the time and he just got up out of bed and he didn't want to hear it, you know.
Off to the hospital he went.
But see, because I was dead to the world, to them, you know.
Right, and there's a little public restroom there.
Okay.
And basically what happened is we had a nice time on the tour there, and everybody loaded onto the Jeep, and the call of nature came to me, and I had to go then.
So I went into this place and took care of my business.
And just before I went out, this loud, booming voice came out so loud that it kind of echoed inside of that place.
A very low, commanding voice just said, out of here.
And real quickly, the second thing I wanted to share with you is that I know you've had Major Ed Dames on your program many, many times.
And he said something here not all that long ago in one of his remote viewing things that he did.
He said that something to the effect of that the shuttle astronauts would be delayed maybe two or three days by NASA because there was debris or some kind of thing like that that would prevent them from landing.
I recall a comment I think he made about a meteor shower, wasn't it?
unidentified
Well, I think the way it was, and maybe somebody can clarify, but anyway, it sounds to me like what he said was that we would have a big burst from the sun shortly after that.
While a lot of the things that we say at the time we say them seem nutty as a fruitcake, I cannot count the number of times that six months or a year later the mainstream press is reporting what we reported and people laughed at earlier.
unidentified
Exactly.
And this is helping people to become more awake.
Yeah, and most of mainstream is not awake to the degree that it would be nice, but it almost seems like it's taking too long.
Well, when you're out ahead of the curve, more times than not, it does seem like the rest of the world is just dragging along.
Yes, that's correct.
unidentified
Yeah, tell me about it.
I'm just waiting, just like you are.
But as far as the whole situation, I can appreciate that as well.
What I've heard about the ozone layer is that it's repairing itself.
And I would be inclined to believe that given the complexity of the ecosystem of the planet, which almost makes it seem like it's alive, you could call it Gaia, Mother Earth, whatever, but it's repairing itself.
And if we surpass that with our smoke and our pollutants, and you could overdo it and overtake it.
But the whole situation in Area 51, all I've heard about that is there's a hole so deep in the ground, it's about two kilometers, where if one of these singularity experiments with these black hole experiments that you were speaking of gets out of control, that's in CERN, Switzerland, actually, where they're going to do that.
And I don't know anything about a hole at Area 51, although I'm sure there are things beneath the ground there.
And once again, I can assure you beyond any shadow of any doubt that whatever it is we do here is many things, but boring is definitely not one of them.
Wildcard line, you're on the air.
unidentified
Hello.
Thank you for taking my call.
My name is Jeff, and I'm listening on KTRS in St. Louis, Missouri.
Yes, sir.
I have a comment about your guest who's going to be talking about the Homeland Security bills, the wiretapping and all that stuff.
Yes, sir.
If I recall, there were certain civil liberties restrictions placed on Americans during the Second World War, weren't there?
And a lot of people, sir, forget that that happened.
In fact, very restrictive things were done during the Second World War.
But after the war, they were repaired, in fact, even enhanced.
unidentified
Now, this is a different type of war, of course, but if they were able to return the civil liberties after the Second World War, we should probably give them the benefit of the doubt that they would return the civil liberties after this war.
And back when I was lean, many times, more than once, I've had to turn off the radio because you had somebody on talking about witchcraft or demonology.
And I mean, I was frightened to the point where I just didn't even want it coming on the radio, so I turned it off.
I was wondering, was there anybody that ever scared you to the point where you said, I've got to end this interview, or you said a prayer, or you just said, you know, wow, you were really, truly frightened.
I can listen forever about UFOs and about shadow government, but there is a friend of mine.
The potential reward, the knowledge you suggested that the human species might gain, I think it might be worth it because it would justify our existence.
And really, yes, you wouldn't have to apologize if we just blinked out of existence.
Why, there'd be nobody shoving microphones and cameras in your face trying to get an apology because they'd all be gone.
Wildcard line, you're on the air.
Hello.
unidentified
Hi.
Yeah, I just heard a caller call in about the whole wiretap thing.
And just to go along with that, a couple months ago, the military passed a bill to be putting, you know, like how the pit, you can put chips in pets.
They're going to be putting them in soldiers so they can keep track of soldiers, which I think is the government's lame attempt at starting to put biochips in everyone so they can keep track of people.
The hour is over, but that's exactly what we'll be talking about when we get back.
This is Coast to Coast AM.
I'd kind of like to confirm what that lady said.
Apparently, Steve Irwin made a comment about thinking that he would be killed by an automobile at a young age.
And if that's true, then certainly the rest of what she said is.
I didn't know it at the time, but indeed, any number of you have fast-blasted me.
The Corvette Stingray is correct.
What do I know about these things?
I don't know a lot about automobiles.
When I was younger, and well, I was involved in radio, folks.
When other guys my age were into girls and cars and girls and cars, I was fooling with radios, taking radios apart, building them, figuring them out.
I was in love with radio.
That was my early first love, actually, radio.
So I didn't know that, but it is interesting, isn't it?
It was called the Stingray.
Something to think about, if he indeed did make that comment.
All right, coming up in a moment is Roger Tulsis.
Very appropriate, I would say.
Listen to this story.
Dateline, Washington, September 28th, a few days ago.
The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions.
Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.
The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people.
That's a quote from Majority Leader John Bonner of Republican from Ohio in a statement after the bill passed 232 to 191.
So it was a close call.
Quote, to all those to always have reasons why you just can't vote yes, I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them, said he.
Democrats shot back that the war on terrorism shouldn't be fought at the expense of civil and human rights.
The bill approved by the House, they argued, gives the president too much power, leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.
It is ceding the president's argument that Congress doesn't matter in this area.
According to Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, the bill sponsored by Republican Heather Wilson, a Republican from New Mexico, that gives legal status under certain conditions to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping of calls and emails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending emails to those in other countries.
Under the measure, the President would be authorized to conduct such wiretaps if he notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees and congressional leaders, believes an attack is imminent, and later explains the reason and names of the individuals and groups involved, renews his certification every 90 days.
The Senate could also vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week.
Leaders concede the differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can only be delivered to President Bush before the November 7th congressional elections.
For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version, but was not satisfied with it, adding that the administration, quote, looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process.
Now, it is indeed timely that Roger Tulsis, who is a Los Angeles private investigator specializing in electronic countermeasures, would be here.
In the past 30 years, he has swept over 2,500 locations for bugs and wiretaps.
In recent years, his business has included helping victims of electronic harassment and mind control.
Electronic harassment takes place if someone uses any electronic device to aid them in invading your personal privacy, property, for the purpose of gathering information illegally or for the purpose of causing physical harm.
Mr. Tulsis uses over $100,000 of high-tech equipment to try to identify the sources of electronic harassment.
In a moment, Roger Tulsis.
All right, I would like to welcome Roger Tulsis to the program, and I might have his last name.
You know, the last show I did with George, we went over what I've referred to as the 1984 prophecies.
And I don't know if people can still download that show from your streaming or not, because that was almost a complete show about looking at all those things that he included in his book relating to the telescreens that kept surveillance on us in our own homes and video systems that actually looked at our facial expressions to make determinations whether we were telling the truth or not.
But we went into great detail on that show, so I don't want to try to rehash a lot of that.
But, you know, the main thing about this is that we need to look at the supreme law of the land.
The Fourth Amendment of our Bill of Rights, which is in force and effect, that has to do with seizures, searches, and warrants.
And just to go through it quickly, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects against unreasonable searches and seizures should not be violated, and no warrants issued but upon probable cause, supported by oath and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.
All right, Roger, I'm going to play devil's advocate with you a little bit on this subject because I'm not positive that I disagree with the administration's position on this.
And a caller in the first hour said something that I want to kind of run by you here.
I don't disagree that our rights and our privacy is to some degree certainly being invaded right now by what's going on.
I mean, that's clear.
And so is it crushing the Bill of Rights and Constitution?
Yes.
To some degree it is.
But as a caller pointed out, during the Second World War, we had an equal, if not greater, crushing of those rights and constitutional rights and so forth.
But, you know, after the war ended, they were restored.
And in fact, one could even argue enhanced.
And everything you just said a moment ago, while true, I think could be used to argue for these warrantless wiretaps under the current circumstances as easily as against them.
Well, the evasion of the privacy during World War II, I don't think, was anywhere near as invasive as the fact that the NSA now has immediate access to everybody's phone lines, everybody's ISP lines, and also the ability through satellites to look through your structure of your home to some degree.
All this is pre-wired.
Part of it's pre-wired under CALIA, which was passed in 1996, which required all the phone companies to tax your bill so that they would pre-wire your phone for wiretaps, meaning that any agency like the NSA or other police agency can literally sit down at a computer now and by using longline networks,
just through a keystroke, throw listening devices, which in this case now would be a hard drive, to record all of your conversations and all of your work on the Internet real time.
Now, tell me how in World War II there was anything as invasive as that.
Well, look, times, I wouldn't argue, times have changed.
The ability, the electronic ability of these agencies is far greater than it was then to do these kinds of things.
But under the circumstances, with the threat, and I'm sure you certainly agree, well, maybe I should ask, you do agree we are living under a threat, right?
Well, I do agree we are living under a threat, but I don't see the point of sacrificing the Constitution.
I don't see the problem with having a warrant for a wiretap.
In other words, when this judge recently, I'm looking at the article here, this district judge Anna Diggs Taylor, her statement was that she thought that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which required having warrants, was adequate.
And basically, she said there are no hereditary kings in America and no powers created by the Constitution.
So what she's saying is that the balance, the whole idea of checks and balances, in the sense that you can have an executive branch that's going to say, oh, we want to just wiretap where we want to wiretap.
And the Constitution says, well, you can't do that without the judiciary giving authorization.
And therefore, it's a check and balance between the executive branch and the judiciary.
And hopefully, things don't get to the point where our rights are totally crushed.
So once you put that check and balance to the side saying, you know, I'm a king now.
I don't have to go ask permission about doing these kind of things.
I'm just going to flip the switches.
And it's not only just listening to whomever they want to listen to, because it's not, the reason that they don't want these warrants is because they are not looking at people that they really have as a target.
A lot of what's happening now is because all of our calls are going through this NSA facility, which is in Virginia.
And you have football fields of supercomputers, And these supercomputers listen to words.
They listen to human conversation and they make determinations whether there's any words passing through those conversations that are of interest.
Same thing on the ISP.
If you type an email and there are words in that email that are of interest, that means there's kind of a dragnet going on.
And from that dragnet, they're going to find phone numbers of interest that have keywords that they're looking for.
You have just explained to me why they need warrantless searches.
I mean, you've just given me the reason why they need them.
They may not know.
For example, if we've got a computer looking for bomb or perhaps nuclear weapon or I don't know what words would trigger it, probably a zillion.
But if they're looking for somebody who wants to harm, do mass destruction to many Americans.
Now, how can they name that person if they don't know who it is?
Now, if a machine comes up and finds that person, well, then fine.
They then have the name or the number and they can go look for it.
I am playing devil's advocate, but I do believe this to some degree, Roger.
I mean, we are under a very, very serious threat here.
A nuclear device could go off in the United States, destroying a city or many cities, or some sort of biological weapon or something horrible could occur because we know these people want us dead.
Yes, I agree with you, but most of these people will go down to 7-Eleven and they'll buy a nameless cell phone, a track phone or one of these other phones where you don't sign up for anything.
And here you have the focus of most of these systems that at least are the ones that are of the CALIA law enforcement type where they pre-wired everybody's phone in America.
And so for those people that have those unlimited resources where they can change phones every day or two, it's almost impossible for this kind of vacuum cleaning system to really track these people that well.
So, you know, I'm just saying that when they had us spend millions and millions of dollars getting all of our phone lines pre-wired into the NSA, the thing about the cell phone industry and these cell phones and also voice over IP, which is a whole nother thing, you're talking about packets that are not one line of stream.
Packets can end up going on an individual basis.
They can even go different routes.
If you look at the way IP systems operate, a phone conversation, part of it could be looping through thousands of miles in one direction and part can be other thousands of miles.
And when they land at the final target end site, they get reconstituted back together again.
Well, I'm just, I personally think that you really have to be cautious about surrendering all these rights that these founding fathers put in place for a real reason.
You know, where, you know, we're just going to do a little bit today and tomorrow we're going to do a little bit more until next thing you know, you're into this 1984 Big Brother society where you've got a camera in your own house that watches you and you don't really know when you're being watched and when you're not being watched.
So the question becomes, if you abrogate The Fourth Amendment and say, oh, well, you know, we're going to fudge it now.
We're no longer going to need warrants on that.
The next thing you're going to know is that these, you know, and we're almost there in the sense that most people's, or a lot of people's computers have cameras on them.
And if that computer is on an ISP full-time, you don't really know whether the thing really is sending out the images or not.
It's kind of difficult to tell unless, of course, you pull your actual cable from the back of the computer when you're not looking at, when you're not working with it, which I suggest doing anyway.
I think that's a good idea.
One more thing on this, you know, the thing we haven't talked about, data mining, because one of the very other big stories is when AT ⁇ T admitted that they are giving their whole database relating to phone connection information over to the NSA.
And so are the other phone companies.
They say that all the numbers that are dialed between everybody is their business information, and you can't have no objection what they do with their business information.
But of course, that information lists every number and every contact that everybody makes with one another.
It wouldn't be difficult to go back in that database and form a chart of everybody that Art Bell knows and everybody Art Bell talked to for the past three years.
Now, the question is, in the old days, when they had normal wiretaps and they gave warrants, judges gave warrants for Mafi and the rest of these people they tapped, they would have dialed number recorders.
And the preliminary way they would do it, if they weren't sure they were going to give them a full wiretap, was ask them to issue a warrant for a dialed number recorder.
Now, what it would do is it wouldn't take the conversation content down, but it would take down the numbers that a person called.
And as a consequence, if they started calling other mafia people, as an example, then the court looking at that information would then issue a warrant based on the dialed number recorder.
Good afternoon or evening or whatever it is, wherever you are.
This is one hell of a topic, actually.
Scott in Fresno, California, says those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
You are a coward, referring, I'm sure, to me.
Well, with the exception of the You Are a Coward party, quoting, of course, Thomas Jefferson.
And I understand that quote perfectly well, Scott.
I really do.
But, you know, our president, those who are elected, serve to protect us.
They serve to protect the nation and the Constitution, what's left of it.
And I certainly agree it's been somewhat shredded along with Bill of Rights.
There's no question.
I'm not arguing that.
I'm saying that we live in times that demand that for them to do their job, I'm making the case that they need this vacuum cleaner.
They need this ability to look at information randomly.
And if they find something that's really awful, they need the ability to pursue it.
Now, normally, to get a wiretap, it requires the judiciary.
In other words, judiciary, some judge somewhere has to say, yeah, there's enough of a reason.
But we live in a day and age where the opposite argument that Roger made, or the same argument really, can be applied for the need for this vacuum cleaner.
There's so damn much information out there that in order to know where your threat is, where your threat is coming from, you need this large net of information.
And without it, you're not going to have a name to take to a judge.
But with it, you might save a U.S. city or many.
I'm going to make that side of the argument.
We'll be right back.
Let me say this again, Roger.
There's absolutely no question about the fact that we live in a new day and age.
Now, this day and age allows data mining.
It allows, and by the way, we ought to explain, and we'll hear in a moment, what data mining is, and a lot of other things, and warrantless taps, and the ability for NSA computers to listen for dangerous phrases or words that might indicate somebody wishing to do us harm.
Again, we have an enemy right now that does not want to bargain with us.
They don't want America to pull out of here or there or else they simply want to kill us, whether it's with biological weapons that would sweep across a nation, killing all that they come in contact with, or a nuclear device that we know they just about have their hands on or will shortly that would erase a city or many cities in the United States.
I mean, this is an unprecedented danger that requires, it seems to me, unprecedented surveillance.
Okay, well, before we get to data mining, I want to just turn this around for a second just to finish up on what we were talking about.
Let's say that I asked Art Bell, what things is he willing to allow the government to look at on a warrantless basis?
And I just made a little list here, and I'm curious to ask you, would it be okay for the government to, on a warrantless basis, look at your phone records?
I understand that, but the reason the founding fathers wrote the Fourth and Fifth Amendments that they sought to protect from government without a judicial order.
Because if we go through this list here, if I've got all that information, I pretty much can tell anywhere from 80 to 90 percent about what Art Bell's life is about, what he does, where he goes, what he purchases, who he knows.
I understand the underlying theory and what you're trying to point out here.
I'm just saying that in an honest response to what you asked, with the exception of my medical records, and that's really nobody's business and it's not relevant to terrorism as far as I know, without exception, I don't care about the rest of it.
I think that they're counting on everybody saying, well, let's just have an open book and we can go into these records without warrants, and everybody's life is fully investigatable under a microscope, and we'll just take the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, we'll just cancel it.
Well, again, Roger, I can understand the reason why they need warrantless searches.
And the reason is because the flow of information is so gigantic that there's really no other way for the authorities to look for the people that they're looking for and find them if they have to deliver a name, an address, and go in front of a judge first.
Otherwise, if people are allowed to talk about where they're going to place the nuclear weapon, when they're going to detonate it, how the cells get together and do all the things that the terrorists would do to destroy the United States, then if there's no other way to get it, then I guess I give up those rights and I say, look, I have nothing to hide.
Go ahead and do it.
But when we end the threat and when and if we win the war, it ends and we go back to the way things were.
Well, there's no sunset on the Patriot Act at the moment.
I think they just renewed it for a bunch of years.
But anyway, my question becomes that if you say, go ahead and take all these privacies away from me now, have we altered the nature of what freedom is as a foundation in America?
Well, we know that we've been successful for the past 200 years on these principles that the founding fathers put in place, especially the Bill of Rights.
When we start giving executive branches the ability to cancel sections of the Constitution, where do we start going into tyranny?
It would be, but how are you going to keep somebody, as this court, this lady, this judge said here about having someone being a king with the powers of the king, as she explained in her ruling here?
Suppose you were the President of the United States, and you had some pretty solid information that a group, let's call them Al-Qaeda, was trying to get a nuclear weapon into the U.S., or perhaps even already had them here, and they were doing the final stages of preparation to detonate them,
or that something horrible was going to be released, some biological terror release that would go across the land like a firestorm, killing everybody it came in contact with.
If you were the president, Roger, and as your CIA director or NSA director, I told you that this was the case and that we needed information on a scale that we've been talking about tonight, Roger.
Well, I would say you need to direct these surveillances as we have always had in the past, where you're really looking at those individuals that you're doing a direct investigation on.
You know, this data mining where you're just going through and just looking for anybody saying anything, you know, it moves very far into the police state where words or speaking words or we tape something off somebody's line and let's just send the Gestapo over to arrest everybody.
And of course, you know, the other thing that apparently has been happening is that the government's suspended habeas corpus, which is another very basic principle that's been with us for hundreds of years, coming from England.
I have one client who ended up, he was in a library and he was visiting websites that had to do with Islamic stuff.
He's not an Islamic guy, but he was doing research on the subject matter, and he was at the library connecting it.
He spent time at this library.
Anyway, next thing you know, about two weeks, three weeks later, there is a uniformed local police officer and some guys from the TSA come in and they literally take him out of the library with his computer,
forcibly seize him and remove him, take him out to a truck, download his whole hard drive, Copy the hard drive and give him his computer back, interrogate him for a period of time, and then send him back and then release him.
I mean, you know, they came into the library, they asked about, went to the librarian, said they were going to do this, asked who the guy was, and she knew who it was, and literally came and removed him.
There was not a warrant.
There was not a court order.
There was nothing other than just removing him and removing his information, copying his information.
I think that the limit is when you begin to see a misuse of that information, when you see a misuse of warrantless searches, when you see people, for example, oh, I don't know, let's construct an example.
Let's say somebody writes an email, and in that email, oh, they admit they are cheating on their taxes.
All right, so somehow this giant vacuum cleaner vacuums that up, and instead of discarding it because it's not relevant to a terrorist act, it's delivered to the IRS, and then you're arrested for tax evasion or something like that.
Okay, well, how would we ever know that investigations like that aren't prompted by this kind of surveillance?
But in fact, they say normally what happens on those kind of things, because they did this in Los Angeles.
The police in the 1980s were illegally wiretapping people.
They had skipped the process of search warrants, and they were just going out and wiretapping people.
And they were gathering information about people that were doing criminal enterprises.
And when they raided the places and they charged these people, they made up the stories that they had gotten all this information from informants that were secretive.
Well, yeah, eventually the whole thing got busted.
But the question is, is that when you allow unlimited wiretapping without warrants, without judicial surveillance, is this the normal corruption that follows?
Where information is gathered and dossiers are gathered about people?
And these things sit there to the appropriate time when the government decides, well, this is somebody we need to take out.
just say that we had informants and we don't want to disclose the informants because they're undercover and this is the normal corruption process that you're trying to stop when you I agree with you.
Well, yeah, but in those days, you needed warrants, and that's why it was illegal.
If you have situations where there's no longer a need for a warrant, then who's overseeing all this?
Or is it just now a free-for-all where the government listens to whoever they want, and we are truly in the Winston-Smith 1984 scenario of everybody constantly looking over their shoulder to see if they are going to be the next ones taken in for interrogation and locked up indefinitely without a habeas corpus to bring them before a judge as well.
Well, habeas corpus has been suspended by the Bush administration for these individuals that were American citizens.
I don't know.
I can't remember the one case, whether he was in Guantanamo or not, but he was held ongoing and never charged as being an enemy combatant, but he wasn't in an army anywhere.
So, look, I'm not suggesting that warrantless stuff is good.
I'm not saying it's great.
I'm not saying I like it.
I'm just saying that if I was the president of the United States, Roger, and they told me that the kind of threat that we talked about a little while ago was indeed hanging over our heads, and my CIA director told me, look, in the current world we live in, with email, with voice over IP, with all of the different communications possibilities and people plotting to kill us, we don't have the names.
We can't go to a judge because we don't have the names.
And the only way, Mr. President, we're really going to be able to stop this is with this giant vacuum cleaner.
But we're not going to misuse it.
There's going to be oversight.
I think as President, looking at this threat, I would say, okay.
Well, the question is, what is oversight and what is the kind of oversight that's truly going to protect these constitutional values?
The interesting part, if you go back to 1984, and when Big Brother put everybody under this gross surveillance, his justification for doing so, that everybody needed to give up their freedoms, was that there was this dark force out there, this enemy.
We don't really quite know who they are, but we do know they want to destroy us.
And because those people are there and we have to be vigilant about their aggression, everybody's going to have to make ongoing sacrifices for an undetermined amount of time because of this threat.
And it is the mantra that comes out of 1984 that everybody has to have these surveillance televisions in their homes and also in the streets.
And of course, you know, they're wiring videos in almost every city in America, and some of them are very sophisticated.
I certainly would not be in favor of having a camera, for example, in my home, and I don't think that's justified under the current Level of threat that we have.
I don't think it would ever be justified.
I can't imagine everybody having a camera in their home, and I think that's going over the top here a little bit.
Well, then we better not cancel the Fourth Amendment because that's particular for that kind of shield around our homes is a Fourth Amendment shield.
And if we start abrogating the Fourth Amendment and saying, oh, well, you know, we'll fudge it out here and no warrant for this or that, you know, it is mission creep against these founding fathers' intent.
And I'm just, you know, we're on a slippery slope.
Well, we are on a slippery slope in more ways than one, Roger.
And again, if I were to, you know, put you into the position of being president and I told you we were under this kind of threat, which, by the way, I believe we are, I just can't imagine you would say, sorry, you're going to have to have a warrant for any tap of any sort that you do.
Otherwise, you cannot do them.
Now, doesn't that cripple law enforcement under present circumstances, Roger, to the point where they're not going to be able to find the people that want to kill us, and therefore something truly awful is going to happen?
I think after giving it a lot of thought, under the current level of threat to the United States, I, as president, I think would authorize exactly and pursue exactly what the President of the United States has pursued.
And I know it's scary to a lot of people, and it's even scary to me, Roger, but I just, I don't see any alternative.
We do live in very different times.
You'd be the one to certainly tell us about that.
Now, quickly, well, now we're not going to have enough time.
I really would like to just get a general definition for what data mining is.
Well, data mining means taking databases of all different natures and then putting them into supercomputers and making determinations about individuals.
So let's say that we take all your phone records and all your bank records and your credit card reports and your health report and your GPS or your car black box information and your store purchases and your ISP browsing records and your library records and gas credit receipts and put all those things into a computer and massage all that information, we can come up with a pretty solid profile about how you live your life.
This, of course, is Coast to Coast AM, doing our own kind of data mining in the nighttime.
It is.
Morning, afternoon, evening, wherever you are.
And I realize that I'm probably lighting the fires of the conspiratorial people out there, and even some of the non-conspiratorial people.
But I wonder if this has occurred to any of you, and I wonder if it's occurred to Roger.
9-11 was the worst terrorist act ever committed against the United States.
I suppose you could go back and declare Pearl Harbor to be a terrorist act, but it was clearly an act of war, actually, as 9-11 was, really.
But consider this.
Perhaps if we had that vacuum cleaner Roger talks about, that dragnet of information that the president wants, prior to 9-11, maybe 9-11 would not have happened.
I understand that looking back, you know, vision and looking back to 9-11 from today is a very easy thing to do and perhaps even a cheap shot, but I can't resist.
Roger, if this blanket of information, this vacuum cleaner that you talk about, would have prevented 9-11, would you have been in favor of it then, Roger?
Well, if you look at the history of 9-11, they had the most important information right there.
They knew that there were these Arab guys taking flying lessons, trying to fly aircraft, but not really being particularly interested in landing them or taking them off.
But these FBI agents that were notified by the flight school ended up exchanging paperwork with one another and getting nothing done with that piece of intelligence.
Yeah, but my point, Roger, my question was, if this blanket, this vacuum cleaner of information would have prevented 9-11, would it have been a reasonable use of power to do so?
Yeah, I don't think that that's the kind of intelligence that would have prevented this kind of thing.
I think the on-the-ground personalized intelligence like, hey, there's guys over here that are taking flying lessons, and they're way out of whack for the normal students that we have on that one-to-one.
I don't think the electronic vacuum cleaning thing is going to be anywhere near as successful.
And in general, if you look at the intelligence community saying all this information about these weapons of destruction in Saddam Hussein's hands and all of that ended up being inaccurate, there's a lot.
I mean, you can give people, the community, these machines, but if they don't sift through the information in a meaningful manner and they aren't organized enough to have their own internal communications working with that sifted information, then it's kind of a wasted effort.
we've all given up our rights to privacy, and for what?
I think, well, my point being is I think they're going to get 99% of the information they're going to get is about, it's just going to be honest United States citizens that aren't doing anything other than normal communication.
All right, well, basically, one of the things that's got the NSA stumped and a lot of other people stumped is you can take pixels in a normal picture, which is thousands and thousands of them, and you can encrypt within that picture and thousands of pixels specific complex information messages that you can send from point A to point B, which when they scan, it'll be a JPEG or something like that when it gets scanned.
Then it's a question of, well, do you actually have the muscle and the amount of computers necessary to take all those thousands of pixels in a particular picture and start to try to decode them to see if there is some kind of encoded, encrypted message in them?
You know, now you're really starting to push the limits of acres and acres of supercomputers.
And I really have my doubts of whether the amount of pictures going across the internet, every one of them could be decoded for potential secret information.
So if you're talking about that level of sophistication, then all this money, all this time, and all this heartbreak they were going through about the average person's rights is kind of a wasted effort to begin with.
Well, yeah, but Raj, if they had that level of sophistication, they wouldn't have been walking into flight schools, just stating that they wanted to learn how to fly a plane and not land it.
That doesn't sound like a gigantic level of sophistication to me.
And then the fact that the intelligence community missed the boat.
And then I love Conda Lisa Rice coming on and saying, you know, we never thought about aircraft being flown into buildings, but yet there's this one author, his name swifts my mind, but about five years before that, at the end of this one book, and I've got the book here somewhere, a Japanese terrorist flies his plane into the Capitol building.
I forget which, but I can go look in the other room because I got the book there.
But my point is that obviously with the scheme of that size, there were phone calls or there were emails or there was some kind of coordinating communication that went on prior to 9-11.
And there is some reason to believe that if we had had the vacuum cleaner we're talking about right now, this objectionable vacuum cleaner you're talking about, it might have prevented 9-11.
But, you know, from a technical standpoint and people walking into 7-Elevens and buying phones that they discard two days later, you know, I don't really give it much hope that they're ever really going to make headway from that kind of technical standpoint.
I mean, they can data mine you and I together.
They can data mine us and get accurate information about us because, you know, we're substantial individual citizens with all these accounts and credit cards and all the rest of this stuff, and we're all in there.
But Abdul and his buddies that just hop into 7-Eleven and pick up a couple of cell phones and three days later throw them in the trash, you know.
Yeah, no, but if the content of one of those conversations tips them off to where something is going to happen or when it's going to happen or gives them some tidbit of information that leads them to stopping something that would kill perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans, then it would have been worth it, right?
If it would have that end result, it would be worth it, I guess.
But to me, you know, us throwing the Constitution out the window and throwing out probable cause and throwing out search warrants all for this long shot that something is going to be heard.
I mean, I really think that most of this is going to get stopped at the border.
Well, I know, but to me, the real destructive materials are really what you need to stop.
I mean, of course, you know, the interesting part about it is look at this guy, Salvo, that had a sniper rifle over there in Washington.
Here's a guy that actually brought the whole economy to a screeching halt with two people with a sniper rifle that went out and shot people every couple of days, and nobody went out of their houses.
They were able to halt the whole economy.
So the interesting part of it is that sometimes you don't need a biological weapon or a bomb.
You just need a sniper rifle and a couple of loony tunies, and you can take down the economy of a city.
And just think what happens if you were to take 20 or 30 cities and do them simultaneously.
I know, but how much planning do you need, two guys and a sniper rifle?
Do you think there's going to be that much communication coming through the NSA if these guys decide to do that kind of thing?
it's nowhere near as sophisticated as flying airplanes, but it can certainly be, I mean, into buildings, but it can certainly be as devastating to an economy in an area.
We did in the case of the England event that happened relating to them wanting to blow up the liners.
So it seems to me that if they do, these days they're so desperate for some positive showing that all these billions spent.
I mean, we haven't even talked about what's really happening with the economy.
I mean, not only is the war consuming about $3 billion a day, but just think about what the costs are to secure America as we move billions and billions more into debt.
The whole war is on borrowed money, and so is this beef-up.
I wonder if it could be some sort of electronic surveillance, because, gee, they were going to blow up all kinds of airliners and wrote to the U.S. from Great Britain and perhaps other areas in Europe.
That would have been really, really horrible, but they stopped it.
The question was whether they got on to who they were through data mining through this NSA-flavored surveillance or whether what was or was it on-the-ground type intelligence that really got the main connection going to begin with?
But of course, once again, did it come from data mining on a warrantless basis, or was there actually on-ground intelligence whereby they knew that these people were trained in someplace where there was radicals and they've been following them anyway, and then they found their nest, so to speak, and then at that point they put surveillance on.
It's hard to say what the original source is.
But, of course, what they're trying to say here on this dragnet stuff here is that we don't need warrants.
We're just going to dragnet all of communications all over America, and we're going to pop up these terrorists in that manner.
And I just don't know if that really is going to fly.
I just know the size and the seriousness of the threat.
And I'm convinced, Roger, that if we don't stay up with them, they're going to get us.
And they're going to get us with a biological weapon or a nuclear weapon or whatever they can get their hands on because all they want to do is kill us, Roger.
I don't know how you battle somebody like that without taking extraordinary measures.
It's my view that we should never have gotten involved with these people because, you know, the history of the Middle East is that they are warring tribes, warring lords.
For 10,000 years in that area, basically what they do is they raid one another.
And it's that kind of feudal warring society.
They don't go to work every day and punch time clocks.
Okay, well, you know, my view of it is that the world can live in peaceful coexistence, but the point is that you've got to let the people in those regions make their own political decisions, and you can't interfere with it.
And it's like going out in the woods and you see a bee's nest, and you go take a stick and you start beating on the bee's nest.
The net result is that you're going to get the heck stung out of you.
Yeah, I know, and I don't think we're going to have much success installing democracy over there.
So far, it's not been too good.
So, I don't know, at $3 billion a day, I think we really need to focus on New Orleans and some of these other cities and our infrastructure and our roads and our bridges and our education system and all these other things.
I mean, we're busy rebuilding Iraq, but, you know, I just covered 12,000 miles in the past three months on assignments in America.
And I can tell you, the roads in America and the bridges are not good.
Well, I think capitalism has installed itself, especially in China.
You know, when you look at it's interesting, you know, I had somebody tell me the other day that in the 1950s and 60s, when you and I were growing up, that 80% of the gross economy was manufacturing in America, and about 20% was financial services.
And now, this many years later, the economy is 80% financial services and 20% manufacturing.
And what that means is that we are selling each other insurance, and we're selling each other loans, but none of which is value-added manufacturing.
Well, I think they're already worshiping the money.
I mean, you look at these trade deficits.
They are in control, and they are holding a lot of the U.S. debt.
The U.S. debt is really an underlying problem.
You know, we always think that we've got to worry about people coming over and invading us on an army kind of basis.
But, you know, if in fact 40% of this national debt that we've got is being held by foreign investors, and a great deal of it, I know, is being held by Arabs, and a lot of the oil-rich nations are holding this debt, and the Japanese are holding the debt.
Well, we've kind of moved off the point of the discussion here a little bit, which was data, data, if you will, data mining and our privacy.
And so I don't completely disagree with you on the danger of having a lot of national debt.
I'm certainly not in favor of that.
But what I am saying is that if you look at, and China is a perfect example, I think that eventually their political system is going to follow and change as their economic system is now rapidly changing.
So the overall point is that democracy has got a pretty good foothold in the world right now, and those countries that are not democracies are the exception now in the world, certainly clearly the exception, and not the rule.
Roger Tulsis is my guest.
We're talking, ostensibly talking, about data mining and privacy and our rights and the Constitution and all of that.
From Manila in the Philippines, I'm Mark Bell.
Yes, indeed.
Here I am.
There was a story a little bit earlier.
Roger Tulsis is my guest.
He'll be interested in this.
The teen, one of the first people ever implanted with a microchip, died in Florida.
Now, normally that wouldn't be a story at all, one way or the other.
It was just a death.
I know that sounds horrible.
But this teen had a microchip implanted.
He was one of the first to ever have a microchip implanted.
We'll take up that topic with Roger Tulsis in a moment.
Well, all right, I didn't have them run the phone number bumper, but if you would like a word with Roger, Roger Tulsis, my guest, feel free to start lining up now, and we'll probably take some calls in this half-hour segment, beginning in this half-hour segment.
It should be very interesting.
Indeed, a teen with medical micro-chipped eyes in Florida.
Here's a story, Book Raton.
Gee, I lived there.
A teen engineering prodigy, rather, who gained national attention in 2002 when he and his family received identification chip implants on live television was killed in a motorcycle accident, authorities said.
Derek Jacobs, 18, lost control of his motorcycle early Saturday, crashed into a guardrail and pole.
According to the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, he was wearing a helmet.
Now, normally, obviously, a story like that would not make national news, but this young fellow had had a chip implant, and that's one of the topics we were going to cover with Roger tonight.
Roger, we're finding more microchip implanted individuals?
Oh, yes, we're still scanning people for microchip implants, and we are still finding some.
Although, I tend to think at this point that there's been a change in direction on the black ops development relating to microchips if they're implanted on a mind control or tracking basis, because we're seeing less of them than we did a few years ago.
And I tend to think that what's happening is that these kind of control elements are now being more easily handled by directed energy coming off cell systems and aircraft and satellites.
If you look at the electronic harassment section of my website at bugsweeps.com, on the front page, you have a box that vibrates.
It says electronic harassment.
If you click on that, it'll take you to a picture of some of the biochips that are there.
And some of these biochips are telemetry chips where they implant them and they can do several things.
They can send information about what's going on inside your body out to a monitoring system, or they can implant chips that can actually affect the inside of your body by sending telemetry to the chip in order to make changes.
I don't think that you're going to have mind control per se from an installed chip.
Most of the mind control clients that we deal with are receiving problems through directed energy, be it microwave or other kinds of different electromagnetic field energy.
One of the shows that I did with George Norrie, after we had talked about some of the clients that we have that have had mental problems relating to being hit with directed energy, he was talking about his young daughter, which was this young lady about eight or nine, who had pressed the parent to buy her a cell phone.
And she was a well-behaved young lady and had good grades and was cooperative at school.
And so the father buys her this cell phone because all her friends have one, and she said, you know, it has a safety issue.
So she gets the cell phone, and within about a week or two, because she's on at night with her friends, because it's after 9 o'clock at night, you can talk as much as you want.
She's got the cell phone up to her head.
Her behavior starts to deteriorate at school where she's becoming rowdy, intention deficits.
She's fighting with people.
Her grades plummet over the next few weeks.
And she becomes this, her whole demeanor, rather than being a conscientious young person, ends up being this rowdy, disruptive kind of person.
So the father, as a punishment, takes the cell phone away.
And in a matter of a couple of weeks, her personality goes back to this rather calm, fastidious, serious about her work, able to concentrate, no longer aggressive.
And when he wrote me the email, he said, you know, this follows directly what you were saying about how brain functions can be interfered with by microwaves in terms of the electrical operation.
So that's just one example.
And that came from your radio show.
It was a listener that contacted me with this story.
Now, I would, well, it's anecdotal at best, Roger.
And secondly, there's no real evidence to show yet that there's harmful radiation that comes from cell phones, particularly that would do that.
I'd be more inclined to believe that the nature of her conversations or whatever it was she was talking about on the cell phone was bothering her as opposed to the actual radiation from the cell phone.
And I do have a research paper that I would have to pull out for you where they had done studies about the safe levels of microwave radiation.
And originally those levels were set by the military relating to thermal heating.
In other words, if the power levels were such that it heated up portions of the body to unacceptable levels, or if it affected your eyes relating to the cataract problems.
And what happened is they did this other research that started to focus on when do you start to interfere with neural processing.
And what they found was that the radiation levels, if you base it on neural interference, should be set so much lower than on the thermal basis relating to heat-ups and cataracts.
I do have that document, and I can provide it to you by email or by Uber.
Well, I'm certainly aware, Roger, that directed radiation, for example, from the installation in Alaska is a good example, might indeed have an effect on people's personalities and that sort of thing.
But the radiation from the cell phone, I think in the anecdotal situation you gave us, I would be disinclined to believe that that was the case.
I mean, you can throw it out there and people can consider it, but I don't know, cell phone madness, I don't know.
Yeah, well, we just got finished dealing with another young lady that lives directly across the street from Three Soul Towers, and she's been on a steady decline of health and mental health since she moved into this location.
She was unaware of that kind of problem, and she, you know, it's a stone's throw.
She's on a second floor looking out on these towers, and corresponding with her move-in, and ever since, she's been having both physical and mental difficulties.
And what we did for her is that we did two things.
Because she was unable to move out, we made a 10-foot tent enclosure using shielding materials.
We use a metallized fabric that will attenuate by about 80% most of those transmitted energies in those bands.
And she's had improvement in that.
The other thing that we use is we use an electrostatic field system where we use thermal blankets, which are conductive on one side and they're mylar on the other side.
And we'll put those blankets on wall areas and we'll hook those up to a high-voltage DC supply at about 7,500 volts.
And what it does is it offsets these incoming waves that are, if you study the microwave, if you look at my website, there are documents on there that has to do with microwave hearing and all these experiments that were done to transmit voices into people's heads and buzzing sounds and anything else you can actually cause people to hear by transmitting microwaves if they're pulsed in the proper format.
The government's been doing a tremendous amount of research on this, and I do have clients that regularly have problems with hearing voices and transmissions.
And they're in the format of downloads where this information keeps repeating themselves.
All right, let's pick up a few phone calls and see what the audience has to say.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Roger Tulsis at Art Bell.
unidentified
Hi.
Hi.
Excuse me.
Besides wanting to talk about a news item that pertains to all of this that I heard about a week ago on the radio, could I ask Roger, other than a Gauss meter, and I don't even know how to use a Gauss meter properly, is there any way to tell whether one is being bombarded in any way?
Well, the Gauss meters will be good up to 400 Hertz.
So they're for electromagnetic fields from about DC up to 400 Hz.
That's not much of the spectrum when you consider that your microwave energy can be anywhere from 600 megahertz out to anywhere towards 40 gigahertz.
So you would need some kind of microwave meter, and there's one called a Tri-Field that covers quite a few of the ranges you can try.
But the thing about these things is that that's about $75 worth of parts.
And when we go do investigations, we use a $40,000 machine.
And so the accuracy levels that we're able to interpret and analyze is so much more in resolution that we can put our fingers on the problem so much more.
And then you never really know what part of the spectrum, and they are very susceptible to structural, you know, if you have metal in the structure, a lot of times you've got these frequency resonances where the structure itself will re-emit.
That's the other thing about people that have these kind of problems.
First thing we do is we get them off mattresses that have springs in them.
Because, you know, if you are laying on a mattress that has springs that are all tied together by metal ties, it's like laying on an antenna that would be the size of a battleship antenna.
Well, the thing about it is that for people that have electrical hypersensitivity, they only have to lay on something that can regenerate of that size and amplify it up just by the metal there.
And the interesting thing is I approached one of the mattress manufacturers and I said, do you guys ever figure out the resonance?
And the guy sent me back this gigantic paper on the formulas of resonance of the inner core of the mattresses, really.
I have some points to make here, and I'd like your opinion, especially Roger's and yours, Art.
During World War II, the Navajo code talkers, they spoke over open lines, and everybody knew that everybody was listening, especially the Japanese.
And certain things that they could talk about, for instance, they called tanks turtles.
And they had a different, you know, they used basically animal names for different battleships or whatever.
But I'm sure Al-Qaeda knows, you know, about this program as much as we do.
And they're not going to, you know, chances are they're not going to get on there and say, we're going to blow this up at a certain time at a certain date.
You know, it'd be more like, hey, let's have coffee and, you know, I'll have my extra sugar.
You know what I'm saying?
I'm sure they can talk over open phone lines.
And in the meantime, the only people that are getting affected by this is the average American being snooped on.
Now, another point, World War II, again, does the phrase, John has a long mustache mean anything?
Look at how many codes were sent to the French resistance over open lines.
But then again, you know, nobody knew what it meant.
It was only intended for certain people, and they knew that meant go.
Say with all your different shows and you are interested in UFOs, say you had an informant that would call you up and say, okay, I worked in Area 51.
I can prove this, and I'm willing to spill the beans.
Well, if they're tapping your phone lines, and that keyword happens to be in their computer and grabs it before you get to him, now would that be right?
But again, just for the record, I've always assumed they're tapped.
Because of the nature of the kind of thing that I talk about, I've just always made that assumption.
unidentified
Well, you know, I assume the same thing.
You know, I always have, actually, especially since I've heard about this program many years ago.
But it comes down to, you know, Al-Qaeda knows it's out there too.
And the end result is chances are, you know, which I don't put a lot of faith in their intelligence, but I do think that, you know, they're not stupid enough to say things over open lines.
In the meantime, they're not being heard, but we are.
And anything being heard will be, you know, wrote down, for instance, a lot of people call your show and, you know, have different government ideas as far as they trust this or they're against that.
What we really should be debating is, it seems to me, the oversight of all of this, not whether or not it should be done, because I think it should be done.
But again, the oversight.
Because, as Roger pointed out, it's the abuse of this that we have to be concerned with, right, Roger?
Well, the thing about it is, and I said this before, I think that the invasion and the power of the ability to monitor us is directly proportioned to the sophistication of the chips that are being developed.
The more sophisticated the chips, the more surveillance, the power of the surveillance goes up.
So as these chips become more and more exponentially powerful, we are going to see a shrinking amount of privacy based just on that raw horsepower of the chips themselves.
I used to say, why doesn't everybody get together and say bomb or nuclear or something like that?
Right in the middle of a phone conversation.
I used to joke about that, but you may notice I don't joke about that anymore because I'm not interested in screwing up their ability to intercept something that might mean life or death for a lot of Americans.
And we have quite a few interesting articles on there.
You were talking about the chip implants and things like that.
And you go to the electronic harassment section at the top, there's a coast-to-coast logo because George and I did a whole show about the implanted individual that was running the computers through mind processes.
And we've got pictures and information about that up there.
No, basically what he did is, and in the first demonstration, and you see it in the information, is that they took a game of Pong, and he could play a game of Pong with himself to a level of about 70% accuracy with thought alone.
No, it's just a very interesting advancement in the sense that they can make a brain interface that will allow exchange of information at least in one direction.
Of course, we're looking at the Model T. My Thoughts and George Norris' thoughts were that in several years from now it may be such that we may be downloading information into our own brains.
In other words, reading a book will be archaic versus a download for 60 seconds on a brain interface basis.
You can read that particular article.
It's called Brain Taps.
It's listed as Brain Taps in my information section.
So if you go on the website and go up to the taskbar where it says info, click on that, and then in alphabetical order, there'll be the article on brain taps under the B's.
It's been my research that even people that have wireless networks sitting in their own homes, if they're close enough to it, that these things can interfere with your neural processes.
The whole thing about electro-smog in the sense that our cities are becoming totally wired with microwaves everywhere, I really think it's going to end up being a smog problem similar to air pollution.
And so, you know, I don't use any kind of RF devices in my house because I just don't want to have any of the physiological problems associated with them.
But, yeah, and I think people that are not used to those kind of exposures may end up having more difficulty with them.
But still, the point is, you still have to look at it as an element that was never present in cities before.
There really was not microwave towers matricing the whole city, putting out RF levels that in a lot of cases during rush hours go to fairly high amounts based on the amount of phone conversations in progress.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Roger Tulsis.
Hello.
unidentified
Hi.
I just wanted to comment that one of your previous callers, I think, was right on the money With respect to the fact that average people aren't going to, if they're plotting something against the American people, they're not going to come right out and say, hey, we're going to bomb.
They're not going to be so explicit.
They would speak in code.
And when he mentioned that, I was thinking that the whole idea of having wiretaps where just about anyone in America could be subject to what a normal person would consider an illegal wiretap is more of a smokescreen.
We've got to keep an absolute eye on our government, always.
unidentified
Right.
So my fear is the overzealous pursuit, justified but at times overzealous pursuit of information could lead to perfectly legitimate American citizens being thrown into a Guantanamo prison sort of situation.
And I just think that we offer murderers more of a chance to prove their innocence and to beat the dead.
death penalty if they're convicted than the current laws allow in terms of rights, individual American citizens should they be suspect of being a terrorist.
And that's where I think that it's all the things I said, the mistrust, misuse of information, the overzealous pursuit of information that I think is cause for worry.
Well, I think that the point he made about, or that you made, is that, oh, we'll have to keep an eye on them.
But I think once you've relinquished the situation where the people that are supposed to be keeping the eye on them, the judiciary relating to giving authorizations and warrants, that you're past the point of, you know, we can keep an eye on them, but, you know, we gave up the ability for there to be any lawful action in stopping it.
So once you abrogate the judicial oversight, and the executive branches become kings, able to do what they want to do, then we can keep our eye on everything, but it doesn't mean we're going to have any ability to stop the abuse.
Your visitor is right on when he talks about the kings.
And the intelligence that is behind the corralling of the sheep ready for the slaughter is so much higher than your mindset or my mindset that we're being conquered and we're being thrown into that corral and we don't even know it.
And the ways of men are being darkened by the darkest indicator that there is on the planet.
Well, what would happen if, let's not particularly pick on George Bush, but let's just say what happens if the current president said, you know, we're no longer going to deal with the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment.
And I think at this point, Because we're under a national emergency in war.
I'm going to stay on another term as president because, you know, we've been able, everybody's going to make a sacrifice because we're at war, and one of the sacrifices here is to keep the continuity of leadership until this thing is over.
So we're just going to put the elections aside, and I'm going to stay on as leadership, and we'll just put that in the same little bin that we put the Fourth and Fifth Amendment in terms of putting them aside.
I'm glad to hear that there's a limit here because before in our discussions, I ran the list down of things that you thought was okay on your personal.
For example, I will give you an example with reference to DNA.
The misuse of DNA, for example, Roger, would be if they took your or my DNA and they discerned from that that, well, let's say I was likely going to get cancer at 40 years of age.
We're going back a few years.
I've already passed that possibility at 40.
But that I was going to get cancer at 40 years of age.
They're close to learning these kinds of things, Roger.
If that information were turned over to an insurance company, well, gee, I probably wouldn't be able to buy insurance, would I?
Well, I think that's what the national debate is all about.
And that's why we're having a debate about this warrantless business.
I mean, we are, as long as we're having a debate, as long as it's out in the public sector and we're all talking about this and saying, is this right, wrong?
Is it really a subversion of the Constitution?
Will it last forever?
As long as we're having these debates, it means we still have a fairly free and open society, I would think.
I usually agree with you pretty much, Art, on most things, but I don't like the idea.
Before 9-11, the NSA said there was so much chatter that they knew something was up, but they couldn't interpret it all.
So now if they listen to everybody, they listen to me ordering a cheese pizza that I want extra nuclear pometos, I mean, jalapenos on it, how can they interpret all this information when they couldn't interpret it from a few people beforehand?
Well, one of the things that's happening is that the machines are doing the interpretation now.
They have data landscape where you actually put on those goggles and you can look at landscapes of information, not in the sense of the actual words, but a compilation of how many words that are flagged words are stackups in particular areas.
It's a rather interesting software that enables the analyst to focus in on things.
So you don't want to order too many nuclear pizzas.
I have to tell you, I'm very deeply disappointed in the attitude you've taken towards this whole domestic surveillance.
How on earth can you possibly expect a government who you've railed about in the past, and maybe not railed, but you've expressed some consternation over the fact that they've, as far as the UFO and things happening on a paranormal basis, they've kept that from the public.
How can we possibly trust this government, any government, to have so much power and control over the information in our lives?
I would never, that list that Roger mentioned earlier, I would never agree to one of those things.
If it was really fascist, if it really was fascist in the way that you describe, they would not be seeking permission to be doing this in the first place.
They would simply do it, and then they would abuse it.
That's a fascist state.
We're having a debate about this in America right now.
And so there is ongoing debate.
A fascist state, like the one you described, they would simply just do it, and then they would use that information definitely in a wrong way, and you would find yourself in some sort of jail or lockup or re-education camp or something like that.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Roger Tulsis.
unidentified
Hi.
Hi, this is John in Savannah, Georgia.
You know, I can see both sides to the rights versus security argument, but I always thought the question was kind of academic.
I was always under the impression that they went ahead and did the electronic surveillance, and then if they had to back engineer the case to make it legal, they did.
In other words, they're going to do it anyways.
You know, and I never see this mentioned in the media, but it always seems to me that law enforcement and intelligence agencies just go ahead and tap the phones and then put the pieces back together, you know, as they need to, if they need to make it legal.
I'd know if it's okay because of the terrorist situation, whether they can turn on and listen to your goings-on around your cell phone at any time that they will to do so.
There are circumstances under which, in other words, if they knew that something was being discussed that was a compromise of national security or something that was life-threatening, then maybe the ability to do that.
For example, I could imagine under the right circumstances, Roger, the police doing that.
If they knew a cell phone that they could turn on and they heard a crime being planned, a murder being planned or something like that.
Yeah, the way it's done is that the software that is in the telephone, just think about it as being a computer.
Okay.
When you want to bring new operational software into your computer, you just go online and it downloads, and then you have a new software that does whatever you've done.
When the government wants to enable this function that I'm talking about, they download software modifications to your phone that enables that capability that it actually takes down conversation.
It removes the space between the conversation to optimize memory, and then it will data burst that conversation back up at a convenient time.
I've been listening to your guest tonight talk about our lack of privacy and the monitoring of the American people when on the consumer level it's been going on for years.
The POS terminals, the corporations know oftentimes very intimate details of our lives.
That's absolutely true.
Since 1999, all vehicles manufactured have GPS systems.
Basically what I'm asking is how come it's okay for corporations to do this and not the government in the name of security?
Oh, but Roger, there are corporations that look at, for example, what you buy or even what you look at that's, for example, advertised on the web.
And then if you enter information, including your name and phone number and God knows what else, those lists are frequently sold and passed among corporations and things like that.
First time caller line, you're on the air with Roger Tulsis.
unidentified
Hi.
Hi, Art.
How are you?
I love your show.
I really do respect you a great deal because you do give a very legitimate voice and a huge stage to guys like Roger.
And this is a discourse that needs to happen, and I think it should be happening more often.
Roger, I do have a question for you.
It's great that you bring this to national attention, that you go on Arts Show, and I'll look forward to seeing you on Fox News.
But if you're going to come out here and you're going to say this in public and come on the air and level these kinds of, I wouldn't call them accusations, but suggestions, then where do you want to take this?
I mean, it's great to talk about it, but then what can we do about it?
I mean, what does it mean for us?
And how can we combat this in our own lives if we're worried about this?
Well, you know, first of all, you can make sure that when you transact things, you transact things in manners where you're not leaving a great deal of records.
I tend to do most of my transacting in cash just so that I can keep my personal privacy about what I spend money on and my own spending habits.
So as far as that goes, that covers a lot of it.
That takes your whole financial picture and puts that into a better space of anonymity.
And I've got a question for both of you, and I'd like Art to take it on first, if I may.
Just to be politically correct, let's say you had, hypothetically, had a government that rigged an election, had collusion, and assisted in 9-11, and is dispersing spent plutonium like a dirty bomb throughout a nation that they invaded illegally.
Don't you think this technology would sort of keep them in power as opposed to assist the public in dealing with the reality and truths that are being hidden from them currently by the mass media?
And you think all those, what you just mentioned, a government that blew up its own buildings and what else was it?
unidentified
I think if you look at the physics of how the building fell and how Building 7 was conveniently taken out with the Enron and WorldCom paperwork and the missing money and the no-bid Carlisle military contract oil profits hungry administration, is your country worth that administration or is your future worth kissing up to them?
When you have these kind of powerful databases with all the dossiers and available information about every detail of another person, then how does a challenging political party come up against somebody that has that control, that information at their fingertips?
And just like to play devil's advocate here for a minute, if I could.
Starting with Abraham Lincoln, he suspended habeas corpus and started to imprison Southern sympathizers.
Woodrow Wilson did roughly the same thing and directed it towards peace protesters.
Franklin Roosevelt suspended hapeas corpus, and along with that, he started concentration, not concentration camps, but internment camps for Japanese, as well as even stationing federal agents inside German-speaking schools and churches, and basically, in a roundabout way, outlawing the speaking of the German language during World War II.
In my opinion, I would say that what our government is doing now is far less abusive than what any other president has done.
And, of course, just look what happened to, as an example, the Native Americans.
They were rounded up, put in concentration camps, and they attempted to get rid of them altogether, give them smallpox and all the rest of this kind of stuff.
So, you know, there's a long history of those kind of abuses, and then you've got to say to yourself, how much power do you want to give a government to be able to single out people and have dossiers with these kind of details we were talking about tonight?
I would like to say thank God that you have common sense.
I know you tend to be a little liberal on certain things, but in this case, you are right on.
You've tied this guy up in knots.
Every time you try to explain something to him, he reverts to some sort of convoluted nonsense.
He's referring to the American Indians when you ask him about internment camps of World War II.
I find this man extremely offensive, and I like to thank God that he's not in charge of our security.
I guess if he starts seeing mushroom clouds around America, he'll be screaming that President Bush, who it's quite obvious he despises, isn't doing his job.
If this was an elected Democratic president, he would be screaming for interrogation of everyone except Middle Easterners.
Well, of course, it would be absolutely impossible for us to make any sort of medical diagnosis on what killed your husband.
So I'm not even going to try to answer that question.
I'm sorry he passed away, but obviously we can't go there.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Roger Tulsis, and not a whole lot of time.
unidentified
Hi.
Okay, hi.
Art, you have a great phone hostess.
Roger, I saw your website, and it's astonishing all these information you have about the weapons that they use.
I wanted to ask you, since I've seen like on the internet a lot of people who are suffering, they say, from these electronic, I call it electronic harassment.
Yes.
Do you think there's a, not the government, but do you think there's a group or a shadow group that are doing experiments and then people aren't aware of?
Yeah, a nutshell is that under Title 50, Chapter 32, Section 1520A, the government has the ability to do bioweapons experiments on its own citizens, and it's under the Non-Lethal Weapons Program.